What Does Chicago Do with Patrick Kane?
- Thread starter TSC
- Start date
I just want them to exchange my #88 gear.
I didn't even have to make it the rule in my house -- my 13-year old son doesn't want it anymore.
The organization is really pissing me off.
I didn't even have to make it the rule in my house -- my 13-year old son doesn't want it anymore.
The organization is really pissing me off.
Was the other Kane stuff not known in Chicago or to Chicago fans? I'd heard the cab driver story, but not the statutory rape story until I met people who knew him.
Statutory rape charge is new to me. The cab driver thing and the drunken stumble thru Madison were the previous big stories. I can root for athletes who aren't especially admirable. ( I think I rooted for Detek Lowe). McTavish even, though he served his time and was remorseful.Marciano490 said:
A rapist who buys his way out of jail is asking a lot.
So, the accuser,or her family, dummied up a fake rape kit, and gave it to her lawyer? That doesn't seem like the most genius move in history.
Luis Taint said:
It would take 10 seconds of googling to realize that's not factually correct at all
Forgive my ignorance, but I am not following. What are you saying is not factually correct?veritas said:
Ok, I've read several articles on it. The mother gets the bag from wherever, gives it to the lawyer saying it was left on her frontporch. The lawyer, goes on to have a presser, where all the accusers info is on the bag. The Lawyer, who should have maybe began asking questions before the press conference, finds out the mother is full of shit, and quits. Where did the mother get the bag? And is the mother prosecutable? This idiot mother has now giving Patrick Kane all the reasonable doubt he'll ever need.
Average Reds said:
I believe it was only the evidence bag associated with the rape kit that allegedly showed up on the mother's doorstep. I.e., not the rape kit itself. You're right to be confused, because several early reports said it was the rape kit itself.
Thanks. This is a very strange case and I had not been following it closely. But the last two days are simply astounding.
Really? No bearing? Without knowing any more than we do right now, and coupled with the lawyer's noisy withdrawal?drleather2001 said:
http://deadspin.com/lawyer-for-patrick-kanes-accuser-withdraws-from-case-1732933091
It wasn't a fake rape kit. It's bizarre and super sketchy that the mother got it and why she lied about how she got it. But not really sure how that changes the merits of the case without knowing more details. I feel awful for this girl, assuming something awful happened to her and now she's caught up in this shit storm.
It wasn't a fake rape kit. It's bizarre and super sketchy that the mother got it and why she lied about how she got it. But not really sure how that changes the merits of the case without knowing more details. I feel awful for this girl, assuming something awful happened to her and now she's caught up in this shit storm.
If it was indeed a "legitimate rape kit bag from the case," then someone has tampered with evidence. It appears that that someone is connected to the accuser's mother. It's certainly possible that the mother is bonkers and has made some sort of ham fisted attempt at "helping" her daughter. It's also possible that this entire thing is a ruse. I don't pretend to have any idea what the hell is going on, but I can't dismiss this as having no potential relationship to the merits of the case against Kane. We know very little about the allegations against him.
veritas said:
How can it be the actual rape kit if the Police put out a press release saying that is still within their possession?
Soxhop posted that a page back.
With the lawyer withdrawing from the case I guess we won't learn more until the DA's press conference today at 11.
If the police are telling the truth - and it would appear that they are -then it isn't the actual rape kit (bag). And it is fair to draw inferences from that fact and the withdrawal of the lawyer.j44thor said:
We really are left with two choices now. Either the entire incident was a shakedown, or the mother of the alleged victim has demonstrated an almost incomprehensible level of stupidity by allowing her daughters rapist to escape accountability.
Of course, it's not a mutually exclusive situation, since the mother is an abject moron either way.
One aspect if this case (of many) that I don't get is exactly what basis the victim's lawyer is using for seeking to withdraw from the case. He doesn't represent the mother. Simply because he cannot deal with her should not be a valid basis to withdraw from the case (especially considering he has stated he still believes the claim of the victim).
Indeed, I wasn't aware that an attorney could simply withdraw from a case like this without court approval.
Indeed, I wasn't aware that an attorney could simply withdraw from a case like this without court approval.
The DA is prosecuting the case, not the victim's attorney. He has no standing in the actual criminal proceedings so no court approval is necessary. The victim is under no obligation to have legal representation.riveraulwick said:
Right. He hasn't appeared in any case at this point, so he doesn't need anyone's permission to withdraw. He is essentially firing his client. It's possible that the mother was funding the representation, and because of mother's shenanigans he no longer believes he can represent the accuser with the mother in the picture.RIFan said:
Here's one intriguing possibility to consider (to be clear, this is rank speculation):
-Accuser made a truthful report
-Mom is an opportunistic nutjob and/or general bad person
-She pays to retain a lawyer for accuser, with the aim of extracting a large civil settlement
-Kane and co are willing to listen, but mom is pressuring accuser into making sky high demands
-Report surfaces that none of Kane's DNA is found in rape kit
-Mom--perhaps due to pushback from Kane's lawyers--panics and thinks that this development is going to kill their ability to extract a settlement/win a judgment
-Mom, being an idiot and having watched too much TV, decides that the only way to preserve leverage is to remove the rape kit from the equation by making it look like it was tampered with
-Shitstorm ensues...
I think I'm just going to check out of this entire situation until some sort of official conclusion in a court of law is made. This entire situation is completely fucked up, and there are alot of people rushing to report things without a lot of verification.
DA talking now. Erie County rape kits are in a box, not a bag. He's going through the chain of custody with videos and photos. Says the kit in question never left police custody.
The bag seems to have originated from the night of the alleged rape. I guess the woman went to her mother's house and changed her shirt before going to the hospital for the exam. The bag was given to the mother to collect the shirt as evidence.
WTF is the mother's motive here?
The bag seems to have originated from the night of the alleged rape. I guess the woman went to her mother's house and changed her shirt before going to the hospital for the exam. The bag was given to the mother to collect the shirt as evidence.
WTF is the mother's motive here?
Sorry if I wasn't clearer in my post above about the lawyer withdrawing from the case. I fully realize that the private attorney has no bearing on the criminal case. I assumed there was a concurrent civil complaint filed against Kane that this attorney was handling. I was only trying to speculate whether the attorney could successfully claim this issue of the mother is proper ethical grounds to withdraw as counsel in the civil suit. In any matter, he cannot just quit the civil case (if one was indeed initiated) without judicial approval.
I always assumed the bizarre behavior by the mom was more tied to the civil side than the criminal side. It certainly seems like it was connected to a shake down of Kane, although how mom saw this coming together with this ploy only her twisted mind could answer.
I always assumed the bizarre behavior by the mom was more tied to the civil side than the criminal side. It certainly seems like it was connected to a shake down of Kane, although how mom saw this coming together with this ploy only her twisted mind could answer.
That's not invariably correct re: withdrawal. It would largely depend on the local rules. In MA, you can do it even after a case has been filed without leave of the Court in certain circumstances.
It's not unlikely that no official conclusion in a court of law will ever be made. But it's really weird that you keep falling back on this.AMcGhie said:
Myt1 said:
I'm talking about the merits of the case, and the mother's actions' impact on them.
If I'm representing A, and A's mother is a total lunatic and says/does some embarrassing shit, it's problematic in a practical sense. However, it technically should not impact the factual support (or lack thereof) of my client's case.
To wit: my opponent is cross-examining A, and starts talking about A's Mom's lunatic behavior, I object on the basis of relevancy, and (without knowing more), the judge would sustain.
But, again, that doesn't mean there are other practical reasons that the mother is making it impossible for the attorney to be effective. She might be a fucking giant pain in the ass.
drleather2001 said:
In the abstract, the bolded is correct.
However, real life is not abstract. And this isn't the mother saying/doing "some embarrassing shit." This is the mother of the accuser being caught red-handed manufacturing evidence of police/prosecutorial misconduct. And in response, the DA has described the actions of the mother as "an elaborate hoax" and he's openly questioning whether he'll even present the case to the grand jury.
There is no way Patrick Kane is ever successfully prosecuted now.
dr,
Your opponent is going to depose A's mom for a day and get access to every single scintilla of communication they've had about the issue, all pretty much dedicated to the issue of why she felt the need to create a hoax like this and what conversations she had with A leading up to this.
This is a huge fucking deal (especially with the lawyer withdrawing). And if it were any crime but rape, I don't think anyone would be at all inclined to whistle past the graveyard for what this actually means practically for the case. You're begging the question by assuming A's mom is just insane where that's hardly the only or the overwhelming likelihood.
Your opponent is going to depose A's mom for a day and get access to every single scintilla of communication they've had about the issue, all pretty much dedicated to the issue of why she felt the need to create a hoax like this and what conversations she had with A leading up to this.
This is a huge fucking deal (especially with the lawyer withdrawing). And if it were any crime but rape, I don't think anyone would be at all inclined to whistle past the graveyard for what this actually means practically for the case. You're begging the question by assuming A's mom is just insane where that's hardly the only or the overwhelming likelihood.
It definitely appears that the mom made some inexcusable and completely insane decisions here. Writing it off as her being either an insane person or looking for money seems like an oversimplification though.
There's also the possibility that her daughter was actually raped, then publicly embarrassed, and her mom lost it. Parents do some really stupid things in the name of protecting their children.
But yeah I retract my previous statement that I don't think this should affect the merits of the case. This is awful. Whatever happened that night, this is shameful for multiple people involved.
There's also the possibility that her daughter was actually raped, then publicly embarrassed, and her mom lost it. Parents do some really stupid things in the name of protecting their children.
But yeah I retract my previous statement that I don't think this should affect the merits of the case. This is awful. Whatever happened that night, this is shameful for multiple people involved.
Kane's accuser is no longer cooperating with the investigation.
http://deadspin.com/report-patrick-kanes-accuser-will-no-longer-cooperate-1740275119
http://deadspin.com/report-patrick-kanes-accuser-will-no-longer-cooperate-1740275119
He won't be prosecuted, and it sounds like the DA is skeptical that the claim had merit in the first place.
https://twitter.com/sportscenter/status/662284057993207808
https://twitter.com/sportscenter/status/662284057993207808
So everyone who gave me shit for saying "hey, let's wait until the court case before we draw any conclusions" was wrong.
Edit: yeah, suck it was not the right phrase to use there.
Edit: yeah, suck it was not the right phrase to use there.
That's not at all what you said. And that's not at all what people did in response. The fact that you keep not getting this is a little disturbing.
AMcGhie said:
Patrick Kane dated my gf's floormate at DePaul. They broke up because a 16 year old girl posted a "I just fucked Edelman" type picture of her and a naked, passed out Kane while she held up her driver's license showing her age. Patrick Kane is from every account I've heard from people I know very well who know him very well a despicable piece of shit. I have no idea why you take any glee in the fact that he apparently was able to take a page out of the Kobe manual on rape defense. Maybe because you're a grown man who tells others to "suck it" in a thread on this subject.
I said that I hated that all the minute details were being leaked, that I thought the appropriate forum for airing those things was in a court of law, and that I hated that both sides were being hot-take'd ridiculously.
People took that as me defending Kane.
Patrick Kane has had run ins with the law before, and is not a paragon of humanity. At no point have I been trying to defend him. I'd be frustrated if these accusations were being leveled at anyone from PK Subban to Patrice Bergeron.
So yeah, I'm coming back to say "hey everyone that rushed to judgement based in the anonymous sources: you were WRONG"
(Edit:specifically limited to the scope of this case. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to think Kane is human garbage)
People took that as me defending Kane.
Patrick Kane has had run ins with the law before, and is not a paragon of humanity. At no point have I been trying to defend him. I'd be frustrated if these accusations were being leveled at anyone from PK Subban to Patrice Bergeron.
So yeah, I'm coming back to say "hey everyone that rushed to judgement based in the anonymous sources: you were WRONG"
(Edit:specifically limited to the scope of this case. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to think Kane is human garbage)
You're acting as if he were exonerated or evidence came out showing his innocence? Did that occur or did the alleged victim just get tired of the stress and harassment and decide it wasn't worth proceeding, as often happens in these cases?
If so, I think we should be upset that sex crimes continue to go unpunished because of the shame and stress placed on the victim.
If so, I think we should be upset that sex crimes continue to go unpunished because of the shame and stress placed on the victim.
Did you read the DA's statement? He basically said that none of her allegations matched up with the evidence or testimony of anyone else. He said "the so-called 'case' was rife with reasonable doubt". That's a huuuuuge difference from "we did not have the evidence to proceed in this case."Marciano490 said:
Kane is still a despicable shithead, and nothing I'm trying to defend here should be taken outside of the context of this specific case.
My point was and continues to be: "I don't care who it is, until they are charged and tried, no one should assume their guilt until it is proven." And "I hate when the media uses anonymous (and especially when wrong) sources to wildly speculate about criminal outcomes"
And I know I differ from some of you on that. I'm not going to convince you to change, and you aren't going to convince me either.
I agree with you on that point. I wish she had remained anonymous throughout because the attention on her was not right too, regardless of the outcome. (And even after the DA said that she had no case).Marciano490 said:
I'm so vocal because the gap between the general "Kane is a shithead and is guilty" vibe from the media (and here) is in such contrast to the language the DA used in saying that there was no case.
We can all still to hate Kane for plenty of other reasons
Totally wish I had not used that phrase though. That was in poor taste. I will take that back.Marciano490 said:
AMcGhie said:
Respect. And I read the DA's comments after reading your post; obviously the investigation is a black box, but the DA is at least representing that the evidence indicated Kane's innocence, so, yes, it's entirely possible/plausible this was a false accusation.
AMcGhie said:
I understand your emotional response, but I have to agree with Myt1 and say that you misinterpreted the nature of the discussion before.
I don't think people took your initial posts as defending Kane. Rather, they saw it as being a bit odd, in the sense that you seemed to be having an "old man shakes fist at clouds" moment. Sure, it would be great if these things were all adjudicated swiftly and properly before people rushed to judgment. Of course, it's worth remembering that this was the strategy employed in State College some years back and it ended up allowing a pedophile to continue victimizing children for a decade. So it's sort of a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation when you are dealing with an allegation where an individual is suspected of being a sexual predator.
We live in a society where people form judgments based on what they know. (Or think they know.) The lightning-quick dissemination of information accentuates the phenomenon, but it's not new.